A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stick and Rudder's 'Safety plane'



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 9th 03, 02:56 PM
Darrel Toepfer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Barnyard BOb --" wrote...
Darrel Toepfer wrote:
"Paul" wrote...
snip
Please stop by and we'll bore you to tears with Ercoupe facts and

factoids.

But they don't come with bigger cockpits and engines...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Cripes!!!
Some folks would bitch if hung with a new rope.

There is nothing bigger about Luscomes, Champs,
Cubs, T-crafts, Funks or Cessna 140's of the era....
or more advanced. Tri-gear, 85 hp and electrical
systems were damn rare in the heyday of the Coupe.

BTW...
You want something the size of a Stinson Reliant....
go for it, but it's in a far different category if you have
any sense of fairness.


But, but, Ercoupes are priced more affordably... g



  #22  
Old July 9th 03, 03:43 PM
Corky Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 13:49:10 -0400, "Bob Martin"
wrote:

In addition, it comes in REAL handy during crosswind landings when you
cross control to hold the airplane straight while holding a wing down
into the crosswind.


I still have yet to learn how to do that. When I was training for my
license, my instructor told me I could either approach wing-low or crab
(with a kick of rudder just before touchdown to straighten out). I chose
the second option.

Now, of course, I need to learn wing-low to land our RV-6...


The concept is pretty basic: A crosswind wants to blow you off the
runway, you have to counter that affect and you can do it either way,
crab to just above the runway or drop a wing into the wind.

If you choose to drop a wing, the airplane thinks you want to turn in
that direction. You don't, you just want to stop from being blown off
course. To prevent the airplane from turning into the wind, you apply
opposite rudder. The stronger the wind, the more rudder you must
apply. When you reach the rudder stop and are still being blown off
the runway you have discovered the maximum crosswind the airplane can
handle, and beyond. Then it's time to find another runway.

You can and do touch down with the wing still down into the wind.
First the upwind wheel touches down, then the downwind wheel.

The only problem with the crabbing into the wind landing is that once
you kick it straight, you have to get down on the runway right away,
or you'll be blown sideways again.

With the wing down method, you can fly a stabilized approach right to
touchdown without worrying about being blown sideways.

Gusting crosswinds of course make things more complicated.

Corky Scott
  #23  
Old July 9th 03, 06:23 PM
Barnyard BOb --
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:47:01 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli
wrote:

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
So these concepts are so important that the author goes on and on about
them, and there is exactly one plane that implements the concepts. I
would call that a misfire.


You are so far down the learning curve it is utterly laughable that
you should even have an opinion at this point. Call it a 'BACKFIRE'
if you wish. Makes no difference to me.


Hey, Unk! You sound like a man who is altitude-deprived. How's
the "stick" for your "horse"?


Sydney (VHS over Beta, Windoze over Mac etc etc)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Me altitude deprived?
Nah.
Oxygen deprived is more like it, because....
Just got down from 30,000 feet returning from Sun n Fun.
Yeah, the Fly-In was back in April, but nobody told me!! g
However, the trip was not a total loss....

http://www.wac2003.org/
The 2003 WAC, World Aerobatic Championships, were most
enjoyable although the Russians ate our lunch at most every
turn - literally. Spent time at Kermit Weeks' Fantasy of Flight, too.
http://www.fantasyofflight.com/

Serendipity now sports a new metal Sensenich 70CM. No more
slowing down in the rain. Delivery from the Pennsylvania factory
was most excellent. Best price came by way of Stan Shannon
of Rondure Company of Fredericksburg, TX 830-997-8802.
Not only beat Van's price, but gave quick personal service.
The recommended pitch for the RV-3 was dead on, so....
all Serendipity needs is a first rate spinner to match the prop.
Anybody got a 12" spinner that would work and want to sell?

Barnyard BOb --
  #24  
Old July 9th 03, 11:35 PM
Qaz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Forget the 'Coupe get a Flying Flea. Minot (that French dude) couldn't get
the hang of coordinated flight, so he got rid of those stinking ailerons.
I'm sure it makes building the wing easier.

Cheers

Jeff
"Barnyard BOb --" wrote in message
...

In many respects, the 'coup was waaay ahead of it's time.
--
Jim in NC

P.S. It is really all to easy to push your buttons. g

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The corrected phrase should read....
"It is really all_TOO_easy to push your buttons". ;o)

FWI_REALLY_W....
Most times, my responses are nothing more than an
act staged for pure entertainment. Other times not.

In the case of the 'Coupe....
I do grow weary of ignorant ****s gang banging a fine airplane
they know nothing about, but feel they must malign it because it
gives them stature and popularity in their idiot circle of cronies.
This is hardly a minor issue when it becomes so commonplace
that it hurts the value and reputation of the aircraft and those that
would otherwise look up to it rather than down on it with mindless
contempt. Suffering such fools endlessly online and in real life at
times is a definite challenge.

The only sin that the Ercoupe has commited is.... it's different.

A pox upon all those that claim to love aviation, but would 'tar and
feather' the reputation of a perfectly competent little aircraft in a
heartbeat by rumor, falsehood and half truths with no more concern
than stepping on an ant.

YMMV.


Barnyard BOb -- ardent defender of the Ercoupe




  #25  
Old July 10th 03, 02:37 AM
Peter Dohm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

In many respects, the 'coup was waaay ahead of it's time.
--
Jim in NC

P.S. It is really all to easy to push your buttons. g

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The corrected phrase should read....
"It is really all_TOO_easy to push your buttons". ;o)

FWI_REALLY_W....
Most times, my responses are nothing more than an
act staged for pure entertainment. Other times not.

In the case of the 'Coupe....
I do grow weary of ignorant ****s gang banging a fine airplane
they know nothing about, but feel they must malign it because it
gives them stature and popularity in their idiot circle of cronies.
This is hardly a minor issue when it becomes so commonplace
that it hurts the value and reputation of the aircraft and those that
would otherwise look up to it rather than down on it with mindless
contempt. Suffering such fools endlessly online and in real life at
times is a definite challenge.

The only sin that the Ercoupe has commited is.... it's different.

A pox upon all those that claim to love aviation, but would 'tar and
feather' the reputation of a perfectly competent little aircraft in a
heartbeat by rumor, falsehood and half truths with no more concern
than stepping on an ant.

YMMV.

Barnyard BOb -- ardent defender of the Ercoupe


The Ercoupe has one worse sin from my point of view -- the cabin in small!
At 6'1" I could ride in one, but really don't see why I should do so.
If it was 4" wider and 4" higher inside, it would be as comfortable as a
Tomahawk. ;-)

Peter
  #26  
Old July 10th 03, 03:21 AM
Wright1902Glider
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

How 'bout '02? Lets see, in my ship I've got a canard (which will stall like
an SOB), AND linked roll & yaw control. Them Wright boys tried buildin' a
plane without a rudder, but they kept spinnin' inta the sand... hence the term
"well digging." Suprisingly enough, when they ADDED a rudder, and linked it to
the wing-warping system, they quit spinning and started turning. That was Oct.
8, 1902.

Funny how well those goofy odd ideas work.

Harry
  #27  
Old July 10th 03, 05:06 AM
Barnyard BOb --
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Peter Dohm wrote:

The Ercoupe has one worse sin from my point of view -- the cabin in small!
At 6'1" I could ride in one, but really don't see why I should do so.
If it was 4" wider and 4" higher inside, it would be as comfortable as a
Tomahawk. ;-)

Peter

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nonsense...
SMALL is relative and in the eye of the beholder.

Try a Mooney Mite, Luscombe 8A, Cessna 140 or Smith
Mini-Plane on for size, as just a few samples that are not 4 U.
If you can't fit, it sez more about you than it says about any plane.
With all that floorboard room and no rudder pedals getting in
one's way, I can stretch out more comfortably in a Coupe than
any other 65/85 horsepower airplane in its ancient GA class.

BTW....
The Tomahawk is better known as the Tramahawk
and has NO ardent supporters among the professional
pilots and flight instructors I get to talk to that fly 'em a lot.

Market prices for Tomahwaks are as much depressed
as the Ercoupe, so it's hardly a good example of what
the general flying public wants to put in their hangars.

P.S.
I'll leave any airplane that doesn't fit your frame up to
you cuss and fuss, while guys like me are happier
than a dead pig in the sunshine flying most anything
out there with wings.


Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight




  #28  
Old July 10th 03, 09:34 AM
Mike Borgelt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:59:15 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"Stick and Rudder" is not the revealed word of God on the subject of
aviation.


Nor does it claim to be. The subtitle says "an explanation of the art
of flying"
I don't see any claim about science or maths of flying. It is an
excellent non mathematical treatment of what pilots should know about
how aircraft behave and why. The non mathematical treatment means it
is a little long winded is all.



There are mistakes in it, as well as some rather odd theories.



Please tell us more.


The
bit about the rudder is just one of them. In fact, the aerodynamics
throughout the book are more than a little suspect.


Really???


Neverhtheless,
Langewiesche makes some good points. He was often right in what should be
done, but just as often wrong in how. It is obvious that Langewiesche
understood almost nothing about how air flows around an airfoil. He knew
that airplanes stall when they rich a critical angle of attack, but I see
little evidence that he understood why that is so.


Do you know? Do you need to know to successfully fly an airplane?



There are better books about flying. "Stick and Rudder" is valuable for its
historical insights into the development of modern aircraft, but little
else.


I guess that's why it's still in print. And so often referred to.

And yes I do know the maths and science behind flight. On first
reading parts of the book I thought maybe some things were wrong or
odd but reading it properly I realised he had things right even if the
language was a little old fashioned.

Mike Borgelt

  #29  
Old July 10th 03, 03:03 PM
Barnyard BOb --
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



"C J Campbell" wrote:


There are better books about flying. "Stick and Rudder" is valuable for its
historical insights into the development of modern aircraft, but little
else.


I guess that's why it's still in print. And so often referred to.

And yes I do know the maths and science behind flight. On first
reading parts of the book I thought maybe some things were wrong or
odd but reading it properly I realised he had things right even if the
language was a little old fashioned.

Mike Borgelt

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Right on, Mike.
A measure of proper perspective aids one in appreciating
this book and many other things aviation.....
like the sometimes maligned Ercoupe. ;o)

Here on RAH, it seems there is a movement afoot to
discredit the very foundations of aviation's past while
embracing anything that moves, as long as it's not
approved for use by stodgy old certified aircraft or
those that worship at the 'altar of longevity'.

Revolution, not evolution appears to be the
mindset of many wannabees that I note here
jumping on that sort of bandwagon. Fortunately,
mostly all they do is talk. Those that go past
that point and have not survived have left me
and others more cautious behind to address
folly as we see it.

Barnyard BOb --


Barnyard BOb - 50 years of flight.





  #30  
Old July 10th 03, 03:23 PM
Richard Lamb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new
respectibility to uninformed opinion."
John Lawton


Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote:


There are better books about flying. "Stick and Rudder" is valuable for its
historical insights into the development of modern aircraft, but little
else.


I guess that's why it's still in print. And so often referred to.

And yes I do know the maths and science behind flight. On first
reading parts of the book I thought maybe some things were wrong or
odd but reading it properly I realised he had things right even if the
language was a little old fashioned.

Mike Borgelt

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Right on, Mike.
A measure of proper perspective aids one in appreciating
this book and many other things aviation.....
like the sometimes maligned Ercoupe. ;o)

Here on RAH, it seems there is a movement afoot to
discredit the very foundations of aviation's past while
embracing anything that moves, as long as it's not
approved for use by stodgy old certified aircraft or
those that worship at the 'altar of longevity'.

Revolution, not evolution appears to be the
mindset of many wannabees that I note here
jumping on that sort of bandwagon. Fortunately,
mostly all they do is talk. Those that go past
that point and have not survived have left me
and others more cautious behind to address
folly as we see it.

Barnyard BOb --

Barnyard BOb - 50 years of flight.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.